On Sunday, a story broke, detailing Hillary Clinton’s top aide/BFF/partner in crime Huma Abedin’s involvement with a Saudi-financed radical Muslim journal that explicitly expressed anti-women views.
Long story short, Huma worked for this radical Muslim journal– a journal that essentially crapped all over women’s rights, promoted Sharia law and employed individuals who rationalized domestic abuse and justified female genital mutilation– for 12 years. She was listed as the “assistant editor” from 1996-2008 and wasn’t removed from the staff box until she began working for Hillary at the State Department. Huma’s brother and sister were also listed as “assistant editors,” and her mother remains the editor-in-chief.
Again, Huma was listed as a staffer through 2008. This isn’t ancient history.
The Clinton campaign was reluctant to respond, but it looks like we finally have an excuse. ‘Bout time.
“My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that period,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told the Post. “She did not play a role in editing at the publication.”
Merrill repeatedly refused to say if Abedin was paid during her tenure at the publication.
He also declined to say whether Clinton, who has made championing women’s rights a centerpiece of her campaign, was aware of her longtime aide’s position at the publication or its extremist views.
Oh. So she wasn’t actually a staffer, per se. She was just listed as a staffer because…well I don’t know why. And she possibly received some sort of financial compensation, even though she definitely had nothing to do with the journal.
It makes sense, if you think about it. I mean, I’m listed as a staffer under a bunch of publications I don’t actually work for. Except not.
At the end of the day, which is more important? Sorting out the radical Muslim ties of the woman who could very well be the next White House chief of staff, or criticizing Trump for handing out Play-Doh in Louisiana?